si quis+, iudices+, forte+ nunc+ adsit+ ignarus+ legum+ iudiciorum+ consuetudinisque+1 nostrae+, miretur+ profecto+ quae+ sit tanta+ atrocitas+ huiusce+ causae+, quod+2 diebus+ festis+ ludisque+ publicis+, omnibus+ forensibus+ negotiis+ intermissis+, unum+ hoc iudicium+ exerceatur+, nec dubitet+ quin+ tanti+ facinoris+ reus+ arguatur+3 ut eo neglecto+ civitas+ stare+ non possit+. idem cum audiat esse legem quae de seditiosis consceleratisque civibus qui armati senatum obsederint, magistratibus4 vim attulerint, rem publicam oppugnarint cotidie quaeri iubeat:
I vote for “legem” (or actually, the entire concept within the indirect statement). The construction is interesting. I’ve taken audiat as a potential subjunctive, also iubeat. Audiat triggers indirect discourse with a whole mess of relative clauses embedded within each other, which continues up until cotidie (that is the first word outside the indirect discourse) and then “cotidie quaeri iubeat” is referring back to the whole mess of stuff he just said.
I took attulerint etc. as perfect subjunctives. (also assuming that oppugnarint is really oppugnaverint.)
So, my translation would be as such:
“The same man, when he should hear that there is a law concerning sedition and citizens stained with crime, who have besieged the Senate with arms, have brought force against the magistrates, and have attacked the republic… he should order that law to be inquired into daily.”